10-20-2014 11:29 AM
We are owners of two SG300-28, upgraded to 1.4.0.88 firmware.
We want to use them in a PVLAN/communities setup, connected to a router.
On the first switch I can verify that I have independant communities, which have good external connection through the promiscuous port.
Now, I have yet to link the second switch (which has the same PVLAN and communities IDs) to the first one, in order to share the communities and the promiscuous port.
But what have to be the setup on each port of the link between the switches ?
I tried a lot of things (even a simple trunk without VLANS, as told somewhere...) but cannot a working setup..
Solved! Go to Solution.
10-21-2014 08:15 PM
Thanks for coming back to update this. It seems to me you don't need private VLANs for anything though. Maybe I don't understand private VLANs correctly, but I don't understand why they are needed for your stated requirements that seem to describe 'regular' VLANs:
For all theses stations you want these constraints :
10-21-2014 08:15 PM
OK, for the record, I reply to myself with a working setup .
GOALS :
Imagine you have three departments (Research, Production, Sales) with stations on two SG300-28 switches, some stations of a same department are located on different switches :
Research" department
2 stations on switch 1
Production department
2 stations on switch 1
1 station on switch 2
Sales departmant
2 stations on switch 2
For all theses stations you want these constraints :
Switchs Setup :
To manage that, you will have to create 4 VLANS
In addition, to the port used to connect the stations, you will have tu use other ports on the switches :
Switch1 (IP 192.168.1.10):
Switch2 (IP 192.168.1.11):
In order to anticipate future changes and network extensions, it is better to duplicate all VLANs in the two switches (anyway, it seems to be mandatory according to some cisco texts).
For all of that, you can use the following setup (VLANs relatives lines only) :
Switch 1:
Switch 2 :
10-21-2014 08:15 PM
Thanks for coming back to update this. It seems to me you don't need private VLANs for anything though. Maybe I don't understand private VLANs correctly, but I don't understand why they are needed for your stated requirements that seem to describe 'regular' VLANs:
For all theses stations you want these constraints :
10-22-2014 04:51 AM
I think I should have added in the constraints list that I wanted to stay in a Layer 2 mode, with only one subnet.
And with this mode (perhaps I missed something anyway) I had no VLANs separation when I tested.
I am far to be a Cisco expert, but I think that (unlike some other switches like the Netgear FSM726 our SG300s replaces) you have regular VLANs separation only when you are working in Layer 3 level (where your VLANS use different subnets). Private Vlans permit to do the same thing in Layer 2 context.
10-22-2014 08:29 AM
I see. Yes, having all users in the same subnet and needing VLAN separation like this seems a reasonable application for private VLAN. Using regular VLANs you would have needed to give each group a unique subnet and route between them as desired and create ACL as desired to block access where wanted.
04-08-2015 01:53 AM
Hi,
you wrote: "In addition, to the port used to connect the stations, you will have tu use other ports on the switches"
Did you ment it is mandatory to use different port numbers for trunk (link beetwen switches)?
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide